On Monday, 18 July 2016 at 11:29:27 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
Hi Jordi. I see you are in the "organisation"
(https://github.com/orgs/dlang/people)
Can ou fix this bug ?
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16107
A few people can hack on the dmc backend:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commits/m
On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 18:04:09 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
El 15/07/16 a les 15:42, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d ha
escrit:
However there is a PreDepends on multiarch-support. I am
trying to get rid of this package but that means dmd, dcd,
dfmt, dscanner, gtkd, etc. all have to go.
You ar
On Fri, 2016-07-15 at 20:04 +0200, Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> El 15/07/16 a les 15:42, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d ha escrit:
> > However there is a PreDepends on multiarch-support. I am trying to
> > get
> > rid of this package but that means dmd, dcd, dfmt, dscanner, gtkd,
> > etc
El 15/07/16 a les 15:42, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d ha escrit:
> However there is a PreDepends on multiarch-support. I am trying to get
> rid of this package but that means dmd, dcd, dfmt, dscanner, gtkd, etc.
> all have to go.
You are right. I'll remove it.
On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 20:54 +0200, Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> El 14/07/16 a les 17:13, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d ha escrit:
> > Very likely it has same packaging mistake as DMD in d-apt, listing
> > gcc-multilib dependencies as mandatory and not optional, even if
> > you are never going
El 14/07/16 a les 21:57, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d ha escrit:
> Great news! I haven't used d-apt version since 2.068 because we started to
> package our own internal flavor at work but this will fix one of two big
> annoyances. Another bit was x-window dependency needed for caling `dmd -man`
> -
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 18:54:41 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
El 14/07/16 a les 17:13, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d ha escrit:
Very likely it has same packaging mistake as DMD in d-apt,
listing gcc-multilib dependencies as mandatory and not
optional, even if you are never going to cross-compile fo
El 14/07/16 a les 17:13, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d ha escrit:
> Very likely it has same packaging mistake as DMD in d-apt, listing
> gcc-multilib dependencies as mandatory and not optional, even if you are
> never going to cross-compile for i686
>From dmd v2.071.0, "gcc-multilib" dependency is n
On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 10:59 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 7/14/16 10:11 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > Is there any sound reason why the 64-bit DMD RPM file pulls in vast
> > quantities of i686 packages on Fedora? I want 64-bit not 32-bit
On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 15:13 +, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 14:11:12 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Is there any sound reason why the 64-bit DMD RPM file pulls in
> > vast quantities of i686 packages on Fedora? I want 64-bit not
> > 32-
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 14:11:12 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Is there any sound reason why the 64-bit DMD RPM file pulls in
vast quantities of i686 packages on Fedora? I want 64-bit not
32-bit.
Very likely it has same packaging mistake as DMD in d-apt,
listing gcc-multilib dependencies as
On 7/14/16 10:11 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Is there any sound reason why the 64-bit DMD RPM file pulls in vast
quantities of i686 packages on Fedora? I want 64-bit not 32-bit.
I'm guessing because the DMD compiler is 32-bit, even though it
generates 64-bit code? I thin
Is there any sound reason why the 64-bit DMD RPM file pulls in vast
quantities of i686 packages on Fedora? I want 64-bit not 32-bit.
--
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win
Is the DMD RPM file supposed to be signed?
There is a .sig file beside the .rpm but dnf insists the .rpm file
itself is not signed.
--
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win
14 matches
Mail list logo
